Obama believes that Obama is acting contrary to the Constitution.

[Vattel]

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

I agree with Obama.

[EndElectoral]

1. Yeah, me too. Obama needs to reread Washington's Farewell to Office.

[msongs]

2. he prefers not to dwell on the past - his own past that is lol nt

[treestar]

3. He was referring to unilaterally attacking as Bush did

Not to a UN no fly zone.

Let's not be disingenuous here.

[Vattel]

4. LOL

That would have been comical if he had added: "unless, of course the UN says it's OK."

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

11. how about, "unless there is an existing treaty covering said actions"?

[PurityOfEssence]

71. The Constitution supersedes Treaties

Yes, Treaties are considered law of the land, but if a treaty asks (as in this case) or demands one take a particular action (like, say military action) it must be done via the mechanism required by the Constitution.

The War Powers Act is clear on this, the UN Participation Act of 1945 is clear on this, and the Supreme Court has very clearly stated (although not pertaining to war issues) that Treaties are effectively trumped if they're asking for something that our laws don't permit.

A President can't commit forces unless Congress Authorizes or Declares, OR if we're attacked. That's not "threatened" or "bothered" or "looking over our shoulder", that's ATTACKED.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Wow...way to chime in with the quotation that's only had 10,000 posts of comment in the last 2 days!

You're really adding something to the endlessly parsed phrase.

Congratulations.

Way to stay current, Vattel!

I hereby nominate you Chief Minister of Old News.

[Vattel]

7. sorry, I couldn't resist.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

10. more into snark than truth, eh?

[Vattel]

12. The truth is that this my post is redundant (and true).

Alcibiades is right! And so am I!

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

16. could you please define unilateral?

[Vattel]

19. Do you really believe

that Obama was implying that so long as someone else (the UN, NATO, Michelle) joins with the President in authorizing military force, the President doesn't need Congressional authorization? I don't think he's that dumb.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

26. so, you admit that the action is not unilateral.

Do you think Obama doesn't know what unilateral means?

When you try to use someone's words against them, you're not allowed to say "well, he really meant this".
You have to go with what was actually said.

Since you admit that this action in Libya is not unilateral, you are admitting that Obama's statement doesn't apply to it.

[Vattel]

34. Wow.

I think it's rather obvious from the context that Obama was using "unilateral" in opposition to "with the support of Congress." He was talking about unilateral presidential action, not the United States acting unilaterally.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

37. see there you go parsing his words again. It's not unilateral if based on a Senate-ratified treaty.

Is it?

[Vattel]

42. OK, that's a better argument.

I doubt that he had that sort of qualification in mind when he used the term "unilaterally," but it's possible that he did. In that case he is just mistaken about the scope of his war powers.

[Hosnon]

58. +1. nt.

[vaberella]

6. Debunked...a thousand bloody times, debunked. n/t

[Vattel]

8. I'm sure you believe that.

[vaberella]

15. What is that supposed to mean? n/t

[dionysus]

25. it means "if you support obama you're stupid and not a true liberal (tm)".a passive aggressive thing

[Vattel]

38. It just means I disagree with you.

Since you didn't give an argument, I didn't respond with one. Sorry if I was rude.

[vaberella]

47. Yeah, you were rude.

I didn't think I needed to give an argument since a quick search or at least reading in the top ten posts---you'll find one poster mentioning the reasons this is a fail. Not to mention people in the thread posted an argument before I did.

[Vattel]

51. Then I apologize for being rude.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

9. except in Libya actions are multi-lateral and defined in the UN Charter

Congress approved our UN Treaty.

But if you don't actually care about being correct, you can go on misusing Obama's quote.

[Vattel]

17. I do care about being correct.

But the point that many have been overlooking in the debate on this issue is that the Constitution requires the full Congress to authorize war (except in cases of self-defense or a declaration of war against the US). Treaties are ratified only by the Senate.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

18. You need to reread the Constitution regarding Treaties.

They become the law once approved by the Senate.

[Vattel]

20. You need to take a course in Constitutional Law.

Insofar as a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, it is invalid.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

24. the Treaty gets its power from the Constitution. Please point out where it invalidates anything.

Are you trying to say that our treaty with the UN was ratified without it first being constitutional??

try again.

[Vattel]

29. It's not that subtle of a point.

Yes, treaties derive their authority from the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that a treaty can't lack authority because it requires something that is unconstitutional. If a treaty required cruel and unusual punishment in violation fo the 8th amendment, the treaty would be invalid. If a treaty requires the President to put the US into a state of war without Congressional authorization, it is invalid.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

36. again, I ask, are you claiming that our treaty with the UN is unconstitutional?

you believe that the Senate ratified an unconstitutional treaty?

[Vattel]

43. I am claiming that

any provision in that treaty that requires the president to create war without the authorization of the full Congress is unconstitutional.

[phleshdef]

73. Unless Congress approves subsequent legislation that gives blanket approval, which it did.

Congress basically approved a law after the charter was passed that says the President can heed the call of the UN Security Council for military assistance on matters of international peace without having to go back to Congress and ask them if he can do it. Its not saying that it doesn't require Congressional approval, its saying that congressional approval for those circumstances is already granted. You don't have to ask Congress permission for the same thing twice.

[treestar]

60. that is what everyone at DU needs

You do too, or you would realize it was not that simple.

[bowens43]

13. even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.....nt

[ProSense]

14. Irrelevant

because the no-fly zone is a U.N. action.

President Obama acted under the U.N. Charter and fulfilled the War Powers Act requirements: Consulted with Congress, notified Congress within 48 hours and now has 60 days to submit a report.

[Vattel]

22. The Constitution requires authorization by the full Congress.

The President and the Senate cannot divest the House of Representatives of its share of Congress's constitutionally granted war powers by ratifying a treaty.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

27. so all Treaties we've ever signed would therefore be invalid since only the Senate approved them?

you know as well as I do that's complete bullshit.

[Vattel]

33. Oh come on now.

I wasn't suggesting that the Constitution requires the full Congress to authorize a treaty. Obviously I was suggesting that Congress requires the full Congress to authorize war (except in cases of an invasion or imminent threat or a declaration of war against the US).

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

39. So the UN Treaty is Constitutional, then?

[Vattel]

45. Is there a provision in the UN Charter

that requires presidents to take the nation to war without Congressional authorization? If yes, then that provision is invalid. Am I not expressing my views clearly enough?

[Hosnon]

59. You are expressing your views quite clearly.

And so far I've agreed with just about everything you've posted.

:toast:

[ProSense]

30. Was there a AUMF for the Korean War?

It was sanctioned by United Nations Security Council Resolution 84

[Vattel]

31. The Korean war was unconstitutional.

[ProSense]

35. Really?

Can you provide evidence that the Korean War was deemed unconstitutional?

Was Truman impeached?

What about the first Gulf War?

Was Bush Sr. impeached?

[Vattel]

44. No, Truman wasn't impeached.

But many presidents have acted unconstitutionally without being impeached. As for evidence, I can't give you a course on the distribution of war powers in the Constitution, but how about a few quotes from Founders:

Hamilton described Congress’s power to create war as “the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war.”

Hamilton also wrote: “While, therefore, the legislature can alone declare war, can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of peace to a state of hostility, it belongs to the “executive power” to do whatever else the law of nations, cooperating with the treaties of the country, enjoin in the intercourse of the United States with foreign powers. In this distribution of authority, the wisdom of our Constitution is manifested. It is the province and duty of the executive to preserve to the nation the blessings of peace. The legislature alone can interrupt them by placing the nation in a state of war.”

In President Jefferson’s first annual message to Congress (December 8. 1801), he recognized that Tripoli had declared war, but denied that he had the constitutional right to authorize anything more than self-defense. Explaining the release of an enemy ship and its crew, he stated: “Unauthorized by the constitution, without the sanction of Congress to go out beyond the line of defence, the vessel being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew. The legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offence, also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries.”

And in a special message to Congress on Foreign Policy (Dec. 6, 1805), President Jefferson remarked, “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war . . .”

Jefferson again: “The idea seems to gain credit that the naval powers combined against France will prohibit supplies even of provisions to that country. Should this be formally notified I should suppose congress would be called, because it is a justifiable cause of war, and as the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side,”(1006 TJ writings)

In a letter to General William Moultrie (Aug. 28, 1793), President Washington wrote: “The constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

Madison wrote: “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.”

Madison also wrote: “‘The president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia when called into the actual service of the United States.’ There can be no relation worth examining between this power and the general power of making treaties. And instead of being analogous to the power of declaring war, it affords a striking illustration of the incompatibility of the two powers in the same hands. Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.”

And in a message to Congress urging war against Great Britain (June 14, 1812), President Madison wrote: “Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable reestablishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government.”

In the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued (Dec. 7, 1787): “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.”

A delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, John Marshall, later served as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and in an 1801 opinion wrote, “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry.”

[ProSense]

50. That's a lot of writing, but

I asked for evidence that the Korean War was deemed unconstitutional.


Also, your first quote makes the case for executive power in abiding by treaties.

“While, therefore, the legislature can alone declare war, can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of peace to a state of hostility, it belongs to the “executive power” to do whatever else the law of nations, cooperating with the treaties of the country, enjoin in the intercourse of the United States with foreign powers.

[Vattel]

53. I gave you evidence

for my view that the Constitution places the power to create war in the hands of the full Congress. If that view is correct and if the President, or even the President and the Senate together, put the nation into a state of war in Korea, then it would follow that the Korean War was unconstitutional.

As for the quote, it supports my position. Hamilton says that the President can do "whatver else" (i.e., things other than putting the nation at war) that treaties require.

[ProSense]

55. Your opinion cannot deem the Korean War unconstitutional.

"As for the quote, it supports my position. Hamilton says that the President can do "whatver else" (i.e., things other than putting the nation at war) that treaties require."

Again, you're injecting your interpretation to change the meaning.

The excutive has the power to abide by treaties, including the U.N. Charter.

[Vattel]

56. Really?

The meaning of Hamilton's remark is pretty obvious. How do you interpret the "whatever else" part of the quote? As for my belief that the Korean War was unconstitutional, I whole-heartedly agree with you that my believing it doesn't make it true.

[ProSense]

57. "The meaning of Hamilton's remark is pretty obvious."

Yet you missed it!

[Vattel]

62. good lord

you tell me what he meant then lol

[dionysus]

21. dupe X 10000

[Vattel]

23. I know. I'm sorry. What can I say? I'm angry about this.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

28. you could focus more on the facts than on some lame attempt at gotcha

[Vattel]

32. See my posts above. I am defending my position.

[polichick]

40. Oh, THAT Obama!

[AtomicKitten]

41. The key word is "unilateral."

I agree with what he actually said, not your false interpretation of it.

[Vattel]

46. I guess one could make the case

that Obama did not unilaterally authorize a military attack in Libya because the Senate in the 1940s ratified the treaty that established the United Nations. It seems a bit of a stretch, and it doesn't get him off the main hook, which is that he acted unconstitutionally, but it would get him off the hook of having lied.

[AtomicKitten]

48. The Security Council's resolution paved the way for the multilateral intervention in Libya.

President O's participation in then no-fly zone is constitutional and most legal experts agree. And, again, he didn't lie in his 2007 statement; you are simply misreading it.

Had Gaddafi shown "no mercy" on Benghazi as he threatened, I suspect those attacking him now would attack him for that as well.

Edited to direct you to this thread which may be illuminating:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=635737&mesg_id=635737

[Vattel]

49. I doubt I am misreading it, but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not predisposed against Obama, and I don't have a position on whether the war in Libya is a good idea or not (because I haven't had time to look into it much yet). But I do believe that Obama acted unconstitutionally in unilaterally (i.e., without the authorization of Congress) going to war in Libya. (I know, the Senate ratified the UN charter in the 1940s; so in one sense part of Congress was involved.) As for your claim that "most legal experts" believe that he acted constitutionally, I obviously agree with the legal experts that think otherwise.

[AtomicKitten]

52. You are welcome to your opinion based on your interpretation of the facts.

It just appears to me that you are making an accusation not based on the facts.

Peace.

[Vattel]

54. I find your interpretation of his remarks far-fetched,

but maybe I am wrong and you are right about that. The main issue is whether Obama acted unconstitutionally, and I am completely convinced that he did.

Peace to you too.

[ClarkUSA]

61. You're wrong. A Senate resolution passed unanimously on March 1. It called for a Libya no-fly zone.

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.

Here's the full text of the resolution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

Furthermore, UN authorized actions are multilateral, not unilateral.

[Vattel]

63. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that resolution, but

the Constitution gives the power to create war to the full Congress--not the President or the Senate. If the nation is already at war (e.g., because another nation declares war against us) the President may wage war without Congressional authorization. But we weren't at war with anyone until Obama authorized our attacks in Libya.

[ClarkUSA]

65. This is not a war. The UN resolution and the Senate resolution make that quite clear.

As does President Obama.

[Vattel]

67. The full Congress must authorize the use of military force.

There are exceptions, but our attacks in Libya do not qualify as an exception.

[ClarkUSA]

68. President Obama has already informed Congress as per U.S. law in accordance with the War Powers Act

The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War Powers Act. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

Quite a bit of ink was spilled yesterday by folks suggesting the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48 time period had not yet elapsed. It has now, and his notice has been delivered.

At this point the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The text is below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4781606

[Vattel]

69. I never said that Obama failed to notify Congress

of his unconstitutional intentions.

[ClarkUSA]

70. You implied it. I wanted to set the record straight.

<< his unconstitutional intentions >>

What baseless garbage. These kinds of demonizing accusations that have nothing to back them up are not credible.

Here's a fact for you: not one constitutional scholar agrees with you.

And it looks as if nations are jumping on the bandwagon now that it looks as if the tide is turning:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=728073&mesg_id=728073

Pretty soon, everyone will be saying they always supported the UN resolution that saved Libya from genocide and helped give birth to the world's newest grassroots democratic revolution.

[Igel]

64. I'll add a quip.

Strictly speaking, a lot of the argumentation in favor of the UN's approval of force constituting authorization (because the charter was ratified) leads to the following hypothetical:

The Senate ratifies a treaty with the Maldives that invalidates free speech and free religion, and moreover abolishes the judiciary and the House of Representatives. The president, for some reason, signs it. People say that since the Constitution authorizes nearly any action under the supremacy clause, it grants the Senate and President the authority to amend the Constitution in a rather thorough-going way by treaty and disregards the explicitly stated amendment provisions in the Constitution.

Moreover, since "unilateral" is to be parsed devoid of context--the context pretty clearly implicates that the opposite of "unilateral" is "bilateral," i.e., with the consent of Congress--the following is perfectly acceptable. Let's say Suriname is pissed off at Venezuela and asks the US to cooperate in invading Venezuela--it'll provide a few thousand troups and a base of operations. The President, thinking that the US could use the oil, agrees and orders the invasion. This isn't to be taken as unilateral action on the part of the President: It's bilateral, the President with one other "latus", Suriname. Since it's not unilateral, it's entirely in keeping with what Obama indicated he believed constitutional and what people defend. In other words, we are to believe that Suriname's participation grants the president rather thorough-going authority and allows him to disregard the explicitly stated war-powers provisions in the Constitution.

[Vattel]

66. well-said!

[Hosnon]

72. +1. nt.

[LWolf]

74. All the unrecs in the world don't change this simple contradiction. nt